Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Fresh Start

I went ahead and archived the old stuff after I saw another personal attack troll post (which I deleted). Let's try again to discuss problems with the article and appropriate solutions, without the attacks (personal and general) that have characterized this page in the past. Horologium t-c 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "Current Status" section (revived)

(Brought forward relevant portion from archive, since the topic is apparently still active. Please don't post to archived pages.) Horologium 28 June 2007

I think that the "Current Status" section of the article should be deleted entirely. It reads like an advertisement - and I feel strongly that Wikipedia should not be used in this manner. As well, I do not see how it adds to the essential facts of the article on Matt Sanchez. It seems to be filler or fluff - and yet I think that the article needs to be considerably more succinct than it currently is. This is a good place to start - removal of the "Current Status" section. Other editor's thoughts? Eric USA 09:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty standard practice on most bios to list some kind of current status, like for actors, "John Smith is currently retired and lives with his family in Compton." In Sanchez's case, I'd agree with the removal of the names of the radio programs, since that does feel a bit promotional. But stating that he's in Iraq seems reasonable. --Elonka 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(deleted non-relevant cross-talk)

Let's drop the public relations and marketing firm ref. There is no cite or specific name, and Sanchez's imbed in Iraq would seem to indicate that he is not doing marketing or public relations work, but rather reporting. The current wording is accurate but has the dual effect of being both promotional and pejorative at same time, a remarkable accomplishment for such a small snippet of text. Horologium t-c 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(deleted non-relevant cross-talk)

(de-indent) Horologium, good point on the PR work. Okay, how about this then? "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to his May-June 2007 blogs, he is currently embedded as a freelance journalist with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq. In a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks." How's that? --Elonka 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight rewording of the first sentence: and according to posts on his blog in May and June 2007, he is currently... I dislike the idea of using "blog" to describe individual posts or a series of posts, but that is obviously something that can be developed through consensus. Horologium t-c 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that works. So, here's the current compromise wording: "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to posts on his blog in May and June 2007, he is currently embedded as a freelance journalist with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq.[1] In a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks.[2]" Everyone okay on that? --Elonka 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That is certainly an improvement in that it reads less like promotional material. Eric USA 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I don't want to seem as though I've dropped the ball here (since I started this section) - but I was waiting to see if anyone objected to your compromise wording. Since no one has, should I go ahead and change the "Current Status" section of the article to reflect the wording you have above? Or is it better for you to do it since you formulated it? Eric USA 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say wait 24 hours to doublecheck if there are any concerns, and if not, proceed. Or, just go ahead and do it, and we can always pull it back out if it's a problem. --Elonka 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with using the term "freelance journalist" to describe his current status, because it implies he's offering an independent perspective. Sanchez has admitted ties with several overtly biased rightwing publications, including Front Page Mag, Human Events, and Right Wing News. And in a June 14 post on his blog he says his war coverage is being sponsored. If Sanchez has made any longterm financial commitments to an established publication or if he's getting a regular paycheck from any of them, he is not a freelance journalist. JMarkievicz2 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) JMarkievicz makes a point. If Sanchez is being paid for articles on an individual basis, he still qualifies as a free-lancer. If all of his work is written for a specific publication, or submitted to one publisher for dissemination elsewhere, he is a reporter, and that affiliation should be noted. Horologium t-c 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the revision as formulated above but left the term "freelance" out until it can be determined which it is (freelance journalist or on staff reporter). I should add that I am sorry I forgot to describe this change in the edit summary the first time around! Eric USA 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I should have been clearer in my previous post. The problem isn't just with the word "freelance." Sanchez is not a professional journalist. I think he even admits this on his blog. There's very little hard news reporting in what he does. He doesn't stick to the facts or the "five Ws" -- Who? What? When? Where? Why? There's too much editorializing in his posts from Iraq to call it reporting or journalism. So far, what he provides is mostly opinion. He's blogging from Iraq, but not reporting. So I suggest removing the word "journalist" or any term that implies he's working as a professional news reporter from this section. JMarkievicz2 08:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If he is getting paid for his writing, he qualifies as a journalist. "Reporter" might be the wrong word, but the more general "journalist" covers reporters, columnists, and even bloggers, as most newspapers and magazines have blogs written by paid professionals; for some (Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan come to mind) that is their primary or only job. Horologium t-c 13:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that "freelance journalist" is the most accurate description of his status. As Horologium said, it encompasses a wide-range of activities, and can apply to both casual journalists and those who write on a more regular basis. I've seen no source which states that Sanchez is on staff with a particular publication. And that he's paid for his work means nothing -- even freelancers get paid. :) The word "freelance" doesn't mean "works for free", it comes from medieval times, where a knight with a lance was "free" to work for different masters. It's sort of a journalistic synonym for mercenary. --Elonka 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I know what the word freelance means. On his blog he said he works for a media company. If he has a long term contract with a publication or media company, he's not working freelance. JMarkievicz2 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
One more point, Kevin Drum is identified as a "political blogger and columnist" on his Wikipedia bio. Andrew Sullivan is described as a "political commentator" known for "blog journalism." This is the case for every journalist with a Wikipedia bio who's known primarily for opinion writing. Language is used that makes a clear distinction between opinion writing and reporting. The word "journalist" is too vague. JMarkievicz2 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) If I am interpreting JMarkevicz correctly, his objection is not to freelance so much as to journalist. While I can agree that reporter is not an accurate term, as I stated above, "journalist" should not be an issue. One can have patently obvious biases (political and otherwise) and still qualify as a journalist; if not, then there would be no journalists because people are inherently biased on at least one subject. Mother Jones is proudly left-of-center, but the writers in its pages certainly qualify as journalists; writers for Human Events likewise qualify (from the right). My original comment was the one that first used the term reporter, which was a poor choice to use, but I was attempting to differentiate freelance from staff writer. Horologium t-c 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. JMarkievicz2, you've said which terms you don't like. Could you please be more specific about what term you would like? --Elonka 19:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not simply refer to him as a blogger? It seems like that's mainly what he's known for now. This is how Jane Hamsher, the former movie producer who founded Firedoglake.com, is identified in her WP bio. JMarkievicz2 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and posts on his blog in May and June 2007 state he is embedded as a commentator with an American military unit in Iraq.[3] In a June 4, 2007 interview with Martha Zoller, Sanchez said that he will be on the assignment for the next several weeks.[4]" (This is a slightly more concise version of Elonka's original suggestion.) There are several options there, but writer is a bit vague, and columnist is not an accurate description. Since some of his work is apparently being published in places other than his blog, blogger is not entirely accurate either. Any other suggestions? Horologium t-c 21:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "commentator" seems workable to me.
I also think that the "Articles / opinion pieces" listed under the Selected Works should be removed - just as the other promotional references were removed from the Current Status section - and for the same reason. In addition, these "Articles / opinion pieces" have no direct relevance to the main core of the article (that is: the controversy surrounding the subject). The subject of the article is not notable for his "Articles / opinion pieces". The link to his blog site (at the bottom of the article) is perfectly sufficient if users would like to check for these article links there. Eric USA 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I could support "commentator." As for his articles, a few of them are notable, for example the Salon piece, and he also wrote a couple pieces about Columbia which were what started and fanned the political controversy in the first place, so they should stay. As for the others, if there's no outside mention of them, I'd be okay on their removal. --Elonka 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the last two should be removed ("Ugly Betty" & "Press are the Eyes..."). "Diversity Training 101" is not directly related to the controversy either, so it should also probably be removed. If there are no objections, I'll remove those three. Eric USA 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there were no objections after three days, I went ahead and removed those three articles mentioned above. There was a fourth article not directly related to the controversy, but it did touch on issues of military recruitment, etc. - so I left it in place unless other editors feel otherwise.
Also, I noticed the adverb "primarily" in the Adult film career section of the bio. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the adult films the subject performed in were marketed to anything other than the gay market. The adverb is therefore misleading and inaccurate so I removed it. Eric USA 08:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. BTW, isn't it nice how quiet it's been lately? We can actually hear ourselves think.  :) --Elonka 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sensible change. I also changed "Falcon Entertainment" to "Falcon Studios" because that's how it's more commonly known -- and also to avoid confusion with another non-adult company that uses the name Falcon Entertainment. JMarkievicz2 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogger?? LOL

It seems that User JMarkievicz has a biased point of view. On one hand he wants to take off all the articles I've written, on the other hand he doesn't want me to be deemed a journalist. What is JMarakaievicz bias? I've written for several reputable publication, and will be writing for more, meanwhile JMarakaievicz, whose credentials are unknown at best, seems intent on "playing down" or discreting what I write because he doesn't agree with it.

Ugly Betty and Diversity Training are related to the controversy, they firmly plant me as a conservative, and they were both picked up NATIONALLY by prominent websites.

The article is about me not about a controversy. If it were just about a controversy you should include what the controversy was about. The absence of the term Faggot is deafening. I move to have Coulter quoted verbatimMatt Sanchez 10:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Freelance Journalist

I'm currently a freelance journalist. I have written for a dozen publications since I got here. My press badge actually says, "Freelance Journalist".

I am not a "commentator", I write opinion pieces and in the case of Spray and Pray I did a simple article. "Writer" and Op-ed is more appropriate.Matt Sanchez 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

clarifications

I am indeed a freelancer. that's what my press badge says.

Eric USA wants to split hairs on "adult" films versus "gay". I appeared in several "solo" scenes and a couple of "bi" scenes. That is noted on the IMBD description. Also, the photos of me were reprinted in Playgirl, which is arguably a non-gay publication. The photos of me were also used for "chat lines" both gay and straight.

I am not a "professional journalist" although the title of "journalist" is shaky at best. I do stick to the who what where and when, the difference in op-ed analyst pieces is the emphasis on the "why". Every reporter, even "hard news" reporter has some sort of editorializing. Reporting and editorializing are not mutually exclusive.

Falcon Entertainment is who signed the checks. JMarkievicz, is revealing, once again his gay activist bias. the "commonly known" is among gay film groupies. I strike for it Falcon Entertainment to be returnedMatt Sanchez 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My revision to this article has nothing to do with a "gay activist bias." I changed the article mainly because the WP entry on Falcon Entertainment says that it's "better known" as Falcon Studios. JMarkievicz2 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)a

Falcon Entertainment vs. Falcon Videos

My check was issued by Falcon Entertainment, that's the official name and it should named as such in the article.

Point of info. What a check says and what the public image are can certainly be two different things. To me it doesn't seem that big of a difference either way as long as the relevant article points outs that they are the same or clearly explains any difference. The adult industry is known for using multiple aliases for performers and corporations. Benjiboi 01:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy in a nutshell was gay activist being angered by Ann Coulter's hilarious comments and striking out at conservatives through me. Some here insist on limiting this article to the "controversy" Since the bulk of the controversy stemmed from my involvement with conservative causes, my conservative activism is pertinent to the article.Matt Sanchez 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note that I have appeared in many conservative publications to very favorable reviews, despite the constant cries from the homosexual left of "hypocrisy". Matt Sanchez 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Correction of facts

The following statement in the article is factually incorrect:

At the award ceremony, one of the attendees, conservative columnist Ann Coulter, drew negative attention by referring to presidential candidate John Edwards with a homophobic slur.[3]

Coulter was not at the Award Ceremony and did say faggot at the ceremony.Matt Sanchez 03:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to have "Faggot" in the article

The word Faggot, which is at the heart of this whole controversy should be in the article. Who objects to quoting Ann Coulter?

I strike for the following adjustment: "Ann Coulter drew criticism for joking that using the term "faggot" would get her "hauled off to re-hab." Stemming from an earlier controversy with Grey's Anatomy star. Liberal and homosexual activists were angered by the use of of the term and brought out Sanchez' past to accuse Coulter and conservatives of hypochrisy"

Does anyone object?Matt Sanchez 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'faggot' (ahem, the word) is at the heart of this whole controversy. I do however (strenuously) object to the above proposed edit. It's poorly written, unclear and generally ungrammatical; 'Stemming from an earlier controversy with Grey's Anatomy star.' is not even a complete sentence. Furthermore, the details of Coulter's (attempt at a) joke are irrelevant to the article. What's relevant is that she did use the word and that this may have indirectly contributed to the subsequent focus of attentioon on Sanchez's past. Donnachadh 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about this:

Referring to an earlier controversy involving Grey's Anatomy star Isiah Washington, conservative commentator Ann Coulter stated "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions". The comment drew widespread condemnation from politicians, commentators, and activists, and led to the disclosure of Sanchez's past to bolster claims of conservative hypocrisy.

We can insert the CNN article as a reference to support the "widespread condemnation" contention; both Republicans and Democrats were quoted in that article, and all were uniformly against Coulter's statement. Horologium t-c 13:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Horologium: That's an well-written entry, I move for it to be adopted. Without it, none of this has very much context. It's important to note that this has been a liberal tizzy fit, Conservatives have been very supportive of me.Matt Sanchez 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sit on this for 48 hours. If there is no opposition, I'll add it to the article. Horologium t-c 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the segment is very well-written, so I hope if there are objections they will deal specifically with what you've written.Matt Sanchez 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Horologium's change, provided it goes into the body of the article, and not the lead. --Elonka 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. My suggested edit was intended to replace part of the paragraph in the lede, which is factually incorrect, in addition to being poorly written. The information in the body of the article needs a rewrite too (for style purposes), but it at least is factually correct. May I ask why you object to using my edit in the lede? Horologium t-c 00:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it's very specific, and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the information that is in the rest of the article, per WP:LEAD. Leads generally shouldn't use detailed quotes, because by their very nature, they are too detailed. I am open to rewriting the lead, but feel that we should keep its language very general. --Elonka 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to have faggot included in the article

I actually can't contribute to the article, so maybe you Donnachadh can write the entry. This ALL stems from Coulter's uttering the word "Faggot" and it is hardly "irrelevant to the article". I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. She did use the word and the word faggot should definitely be in article.

Also, there needs to be a separation between mainstream media and Gay/Homosexual media which has lead this jihad. Principally, the gay bloggers and liberals.Matt Sanchez 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you reread Donnachadh's proposed suggestion, she/he actually quotes Coulter's use of the word with its context, which is more than what you suggested. Aleta 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I meant Horologium's suggestion, and I did not notice that it was posted after Matt's last post. Sorry, Aleta 16:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word 'faggot' should be in the article. What I was pointing out is that the context (i.e. the details of the 'joke') in which it was used is not perticularly relevant (to this article anyway). On the other hand if the details are to be included they should be done so in a well worded entry like that of Horologium. One thing though, 'to bolster claims of conservative hypocricy' migt be read to imply that conservatives are not, in fact, hypocrites. Those involved in the disclosure would claim that they were revealing conservative hypocricy. A more neutral (as to whether or not conservatives are hypocrites) wording might be 'and led to the disclosure of Sanchez's past as an alleged example of conservative hypocricy', or something like that anyway. 89.101.187.201 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign in there. Donnachadh 03:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that. That is a little more neutral than my original proposal. Here's the revised paragraph:
Referring to an earlier controversy involving Grey's Anatomy star Isiah Washington, conservative commentator Ann Coulter stated "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions". The comment drew widespread condemnation from politicians, commentators, and activists, and led to the disclosure of Sanchez's past to as an example of alleged conservative hypocrisy.
Any comments? Horologium t-c 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Drop the "to" left over from the previous version and I think it sounds fine. Aleta 18:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Salon Piece

Should be in the Articles Section as should several of my pieces from my current activities. I move for having the New Republic Online piece or the Human Events piece to be linkedMatt Sanchez 10:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

please provide a link on these talk pages and if you have proposed text of how or where they could go post them as well. This might quell edit "drama." Benjiboi 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservative

I move for "Conservative" to be added to my categories. or "American Conservative".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) I forgot to sign in again Matt Sanchez 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me: Category:Conservatives now added. Aleta 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conservative, my articles for Human Events, arguably the Conservative "bible" is necessary. Also, my Salon.com piece where I espouse and explain my conservative values is a must.  :) Matt Sanchez 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Matt, please stop using categories as a justification to add more of your writings as links to the article, please. We're not going to have exhaustive lists of your works, either your earlier career or your current one. Horologium t-c 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Several weeks ago Sanchez accused the Salon editors of fabricating portions of his article. Specifically the section where Sanchez admits he worked as a male escort. This is one of the main reasons the accuracy of this WP article is in dispute. If Sanchez now endorses the Salon article, we can restore references to his admitted prostitution career. JMarkievicz2 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reference in Salon.com to an "admitted prostitution career". Matt Sanchez 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is. Quote below:

Some of the sites were comparing me to Rich Merritt, a Marine Corps captain who appeared in gay films. Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.

Since you spent several years working in the gay porn industry, I'm sure you know that the term "male escort" is a euphemism for prostitute. In addition to your admission in this Salon article, you answered "yes" when Alan Colmes asked if you worked as a prostitute during a radio interview that aired one day after this Salon article was published. JMarkievicz2 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Confessions and Assumptions

Wow, that's a weak confession of being a male-prostitute. "I won't deny it". It's obvious that several of the editors here are titilated by the "gotcha" aspect escorting, but I've been quite clear on Alan Colmes, my blog, Kevin McCullough, Randy Thomas, and everywhere else that getting paid to have pretend-sex on camera is tantamount to prostitution. The made up site, use of old pictures, telephone numbers yada yada yada are easy to fabricate, and as many of you can see, there are far too many people who want to do just that. Please see: www.cplsanchez.info for the latest harangings of conspiracy fruitcakes.

It's clear that there is a bias here which goes against the Wikipedia rules.216.40.83.122 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A category should have some justification. One article is hardly "exhaustive".Matt Sanchez 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you wrote this part of the Salon article now. Interesting... JMarkievicz2 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I put in Rich Merritt, Mark Schone Editor in Chief said no one knew who he was. That's not an admission to prostitution and i want the reference removed. Is there a vote on this? The only people insisting on this are people like Jmarkievicz2 who has an agenda.

Next you'll be saying I cheated on my taxes and print that too. Wiki needs a higher standard and JMarkievicz2 will not provide. There should be some kind of profile on those contributing. If you're just some faceless drive by hater with some hostile gay liberal agenda that should be stated up front.Matt Sanchez 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, please stop with the personal attacks, they are not helping your case. --Elonka 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sanchez has done nothing but personally attack those with whom he disagrees, yet Wikipedia's administrators have never disciplined him for it. In fact, they have rewarded him by allowing him to edit his own article and continue to make those attacks. This violates numerous Wikipedia rules. Why is this situation allowed to fester? 24.18.130.89 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Strike "prostitution"

Innuendo and malicious sourcing from a blog should not be on Wikipedia. I move to have references to escorting and prostitution--things I have denied on the record several times--to be striken. Matt Sanchez 09:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think there's a problem with including rumours of this sort given our policies about biographies of living people. Controversial material about living people must be sourced to the highest standard, the fact that something is rumoured does not mean it should be included. I have removed the claims. WjBscribe 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also is the subject of the article notable for being a prostitute in some way? I'm not sure either way (and don't care, personally) but the category should be accurate. Benjiboi 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Every site that covered this story refers to Matt Sanchez as an escort or prostitute, including the conservative blog Hot Air. Liberal bloggers who commented on this story compared him to Jeff Gannon, a conservative reporter who was outted as a gay prostitute. Sanchez is often referred to as "The Other Jeff Gannon" or "Jeff Gannon redux." Sanchez noted this comparison in his Salon article "Porn Free." He also noted that bloggers were claiming he worked as a male escort, and said "I won't deny it." A day later during a radio interview he told Alan Colmes that he worked as a prostitute. Sanchez accused liberals and "gay jihadists" of inventing malicious innuendo out of whole cloth, but the fact is Matt Sanchez is a primary source for the prostitution allegations.
Even though he now denies working as a prostitute, the complete removal of all references to prostitution is unwarranted, because these allegations are already a part of the public record. Omitting the prostitution allegations from the Matt Sanchez bio would be like omitting Paula Jones from Bill Clinton's bio. For the sake of accuracy the prostitution allegations should be included. JMarkievicz2 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The scandal involving Paula Jones can be sourced from an almost inexhaustable number of independent sources - including international press coverage. It is not on a par with a series of rumours spread through various websites and blogs. Controversial material about living people must be sourced to high standards - in this case reliable sources are not available therefore the material stays out. WjBscribe 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So much for the "user-written encyclopedia," and so much for "consensus." One administration has waved a magic wand and decided to exclude mention of Sanchez's prostitution, even though Sanchez directly acknowledged it in an article that he wrote, and in a radio interview. WJBscribe, I believe you are acting in violation of several Wikipedia policies, including neutrality, good faith, accuracy, and consensus. Who will administer the administrators? 24.18.130.89 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Based solely on what is stated the prostitution reference would stay, even if it's "although labeled by the media as," if there is confirmation adhering to the higher standard of a bio the he is or has been a prostitute then include that. If there isn't a good source then a statement "although many porn stars are also escorts Sanchez denies" and source that. If credible sources confirm he is/has been a prostitute then the category seems fine as well. Benjiboi 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no. We do not include rumours just because a lot of sites are spreading that rumour. We are here to produce biographical material well sourced from reliable sources. If such sources establish that Sanchez worked as an escort or prostitute we will include it, if not then this is not the forum for discussing rumours. Recent statement by Wikpedia's Arbitration Committe make it clear that the guiding principle on BLPs is "do no harm". If someone denies a rumour, that cannot be a basis for saying "Person X has denied beating their wife" or similar - the very act of including the denial insinuates that the rumour is true. WjBscribe 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about rumors here. We're talking about a confession from Matt Sanchez that he later retracted. Has WP's Arbitration Committee ever addressed what to do when someone admits something and then retracts their admission? JMarkievicz2 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

JMarkievicz is flat out wrong. The ONLY sites that refer to prostitution are the liberal sites. Comparing me to Jeff Gannon as a conservative gay sex scandal is NOT the same thing as being an escort.

1. Where are the clients? There should be tons if I did this for the prescribed time. 2. Why would I NOT use my "screen name"? Where are the ads with Rod Majors? or Pierre Labranche? (That said, i'm sure it won't be long before someone magically produces something.) 3. The source, me, denies it consistently. I face no repercussions from the Marine Corps and I still deny it. 4. Those who want the "allegation" as JMarkievics are NOT credible sources.

I appreciate removing it, now will it STAY removed? Matt Sanchez 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1. A prostitute's clients are traditionally reluctant to reveal that they have even used a prostitute as it is culturally stigmatized and illegal.
2. Prostitutes are known to use many fake names for security and safety issues and also because being a prostitute is culturally stigmatized and illegal.
3. Wikipedia could probably double in size with the amount of things that are true yet denied. This is why statements that are currently considered controversial are vetted with references from reliable sources. I don't know if you are, in fact, the subject of the article, but we simply need a source to show that Sanchez denies being a prostitute to counter the proof that he was one.
4. Not sure what "Those who want the "allegation" as JMarkievics are NOT credible sources" means but sources found not to be credible will be removed.
As for "will it STAY removed?" No. Wikipedia is fluid and organic and constantly changes, anyone can add and take away, little is permanent, just like life - things change. Maybe through this experience some will learn that being labeled gay or prostitute isn't a bad thing, it just is. What someone has done or who they sleep with at night doesn't need to make them who they are, it's what they do the next day. Benjiboi 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Bryan Preston referred to you as an escort on the conservative blog Hot Air. Here's the link again. JMarkievicz2 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
But, JM, conservative or liberal, it's still a blog, which does not qualify as a reliable source. Lots and lots of blogs still wouldn't constitute reliable sources, esp. up to BLP standards. As for the question of what to do when someone is documented as having said one thing, and then the opposite, I think that is a different matter. Aleta 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't matter that Sanchez himself was in contact with the owners of this blog and never disputed their description of him. JMarkievicz2 03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Citing a blog other than by the subject of the article itself is against WP:BLP, as is quoted by Horologium below. Correct or incorrect, disputed or not, it is against policy (and with good reason).Aleta 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself is a blog, and Wikipedia articles routinely cite blogs. In addition, Sanchez wrote an article and gave an interview in which he acknowledged his prostitution. You can say that he hasn't done these things to your heart's content, but in fact he has done them. The only question is whether Wikipedia will allow the truth to be excluded from this article. 24.18.130.89 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not rumor. Sanchez himself explicitly admitted that he was formerly a male prostitute in an interview with Alan Colmes on March 8, 2007. His own admission is not "innuendo," it is fact, and it was recorded and broadcast nationally. This aspect of his life received a great deal of media attention and it should certainly be mentioned in the article. Typing monkey 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In Sanchez's interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez himself states that he is (or was) a licensed massage therapist but not exclusively for gay men. He stated that the majority of his male clients did not necessarily identify as gay. He says he is not gay. He did advertise in gay publications although not exclusively. He said he has been a prostitute "some of the darkest times of my life" and that in addition to all of that someone or other people have placed recent escort ads using his name, phone number and/or image. Based on his own words he should be considered a prostitute (or former prostitute) and an escort but not gay, however "gay for pay" or MSM (men who have sex with men) is also appropriate with the disclaimer that Sanchez and many of his clients do not identify as gay. Benjiboi 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant portion of the transcript (at about 1 minute 43 seconds into the linked clip):

Sanchez: ...It just wasn't gay porn, by the way. But it was 15 years ago.

Colmes: What else was it?

Sanchez: It was more than that, but it was -

Colmes: did you work as a male prostitute?

Sanchez: - as well, yeah.

Colmes: you were a male prostitute?

Sanchez: Yes. It was one of the worst periods of my life.

Typing monkey 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! JMarkievicz2 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to discuss how the interview could be mentioned in the article without giving it undue weight. However, the proliferation of discussions about Sanchez through various blogs lie outside our inclusion criteria. WjBscribe 19:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, your harsh threat on my talk page was completely unwarranted. I have been editing Wikipedia for some time now and have never been threatened in such a rude way by anyone, particularly after a single edit. I linked to a national news program which is a verifiable source, it is not a blog, which seems to be the bone of contention. I do not think that recorded interviews given by the subject in question should be off limits for inclusion on the subject's Wikipedia entry. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to allow Sanchez to edit his own Wikipedia entry, but that has been completely ignored here, obviously, and it makes for a sub-par article. The information is relevant for the reasons discussed above, repeatedly, and in the archives, by dozens. Typing monkey 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

I read the talk archives, and it seems to me there are many more editors in favor of keeping the prostitution reference with the links - not to blogs or opinion pieces, but to the articles and interviews themselves, since it is a large part of why he became a semi-well-known public figure in the first place. This is an encyclopedia entry, not Matt Sanchez's personal blog or authorized biography. It is not libelous to report what he has said in interviews and to link to his own recorded voice interviews. These interviews speak for themselves and do not need to be edited, revised or explained by Mr. Sanchez. The reason this individual has achieved his current level of notoriety is because of the stark contrast between his past as a gay porn actor and escort, and his current endeavors as a political commentator. To omit either of these things from the Wikipedia entry about him makes the whole endeavor simply a vanity project for Mr. Sanchez and worthless as an encyclopedic article. Typing monkey 00:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that Sanchez has not edited this article for some time - and not since I became involved in the article. As to the wider question, I believe my reading of WP:BLP is correct, especially since ArbCom has emphasised that the guiding principal is "do no harm". This article has considerable impact on Mr Sanchez and we need to bear that in mind - he is not a person of high notability. It is undue weight to include words like "prostitute" in heading so they show up in the content of the article. Is is a breach of our WP:BLP standards to report rumours circulating around the internet (that have not been widely covered in reliable sources). The fact that the interview leaves ambiguity between what Sanchez says there and his comments elsewhere since is something that I agree may need to be covered, but it must be covered in a balanced manner. We are supposed to avoid using primary sources (which the interview is) - no notable sources (press etc.) have been cited that picked up on the interview. Our reporting it therefore raises all sort of questions about reliability and notability. We would be deciding that the interview is significant, whereas we really should allow that determination to be made by secondary sources. Any proposed inclusion of that material must therefore be carefully discussed so that it can be ensured that it meets WP:BLP. WjBscribe 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sanchez has edited this article in a de facto sense. You have violated Wikipedia's rules by removing factual, verified content without editorial consensus, on the grounds that Sanchez objects to it. You have lied about Wikipedia's rules, which do not demand "wide" coverage. You are not neutral, and you are not operating in good faith. If there is a mechanism by which a Wikipedia administrator's misconduct can be investigated, it should be activated immediately. 24.18.130.89 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources are acceptable in this article according to WP:BIO. "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." The caveat against primary sources in WP:BLP refers to invasive personally identifying information such as "public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records." Therefore the Colmes interview and the Salon piece are valid sources. If the subject is not notable, then the article shouldn't exist in the first place. Typing monkey 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. The references to Sanchez's prostition should be restored. WJBscribe removed them in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. This should be referred to a Wikipedia committee on behavior by editors and administrators, if such a committee exists. 24.18.130.89 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article would benefit from the addition of a "Controversy" section in the interest of NPOV.Typing monkey 07:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding into the Adult film career section using the John Hoellwarth (March 16, 2007) "Corps may investigate cpl’s gay porn past" Marine Corps Time ref ...

"Col. Stephen Brown’s signature would launch a formal command investigation into admissions that Cpl. Matt Sanchez worked as a male prostitute and appeared in numerous gay porn films under the names “Rod Majors” and “Pierre LaBranche” before joining the Corps in 2003, said command spokesman Shane Darbonne.

During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003.

“It’s something that was a part of my life, but it’s in my past,” he said." Benjiboi 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Typing monkey 15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to have this removed

It's biased, unsubstantiated and malicious

"The story received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, where rumors circulated that Sanchez had also been a gay escort."

Angry people have fabricated this against me because they believe it harms me. Please note, these people are among the editors of this site and they are biased. The Olbermann hack job sourced gay blogs who are extremely biased against me. The Marine Corps Times RETRACTED their reference to prostitution and reprinted a version omitting reference to it.

It is against Wiki standards to report "rumors" and I have repeatedly denied this, a denial that is shown nowhere in this article. Matt Sanchez 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The blogs cited in the Olbermann segment were the same blogs that correctly identified you as "Rod Majors." The escort rumors were supported by reviews posted at male escort sites that positively identify "Rod Majors" as "Matt (excellent Top)." They were also supported by an archived web page advertising your services with sexually suggestive personal photos of you that you also used on your blog. This web page also contained an audio recording with your voice inviting potential clients to set up an appointment. You confirmed the truth behind these rumors with your admissions in the Salon article and a subsequent radio interview with Alan Colmes.
This is more than enough information to justify including the prostitution allegations. JMarkievicz2 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)a

It is easy to "correctly identify me as "Rod Majors" there's a picture my face, and most important, my complete acceptance of that fact. To compare that to faceless, unverifiable sources that post anonymously on a website and that you have by chance dug up is just ridiculous. The "audio recording of my voice" sounds suspiciously like a line from one of the videos. Photos of me are everywhere online, that's part of that whole adult entertainment stuff. Anyone could use my FACELESS photos to advertise. [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)] I move to have all references removed.Matt Sanchez 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, and do not make personal attacks. Make comments about edits, not about editors. Aleta 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

JMarkievicz2 harps on an admission but is in complete denial on how many times I have "clarified" this matter. JMarkievicz2 is not neutral, he has an objective and is pressing to get that objective into the article. He's also a a contributor to www.cplsanchez.info. Months after this initial "controversy" the hardcore "editors" like JMarkievicz2 are still trying. One must question their motives.Matt Sanchez 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this section. Wikipedia is not the place for rumour or speculation. Controversial material about living people must be sourced to the highest standards. Accusations can be particularly poisonous and we should not include things just because they may be true. Without multiple reliable independent sources that refer to Sanchez having been an escort, this material must not be included in the article. WjBscribe 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez acknowledged his prostitution in a radio interview, and in an article that he wrote for Salon.com. Those are facts, not rumors. 24.18.130.89 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It was highly inappropriate of WJBscribe to remove references to Sanchez's prostitution. Does Wikipedia have a mechanism to oversee administrators who act in violation of its principles by removing verified facts without an editorial consensus? If so, it should be activated immediately.24.18.130.89 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Reference to Keith Olbermann

It is also to be noted that Olbermann never interviewed or even consulted me for his piece. It should also be noted that Olbermann's premise was that I belonged to some "greater Republican conspiracy", a theory that has been given no attention in this article. If Olbermann's piece had a bogus premise, namely that of a gay Republican conspiracy " than why should his other unsubstantiated, bias and undocumented assertions be given any merit?

I move to have the Olbermann reference removed.Matt Sanchez 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)a

American Christian

I also believe the category American Christian should be added to my box. On Kevin McCullough I was quite explicit about my faith. Also the Human Events article "The Prophet Loves You" is fairly indicative of where I stand. Matt Sanchez 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines as my prostitution category comment, "is the subject of the article notable" for being a Christian in some way? I'm not sure either way (and don't care, personally) but the category should be accurate. Benjiboi 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject has spoken, written and organized in Christian events. It should be in my bio. Matt Sanchez 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please provide some sources/references that prove this beyond a doubt. They need to be worked into the article so when anyone reads it the inclusion of that category is clear. Benjiboi 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Call of Wild and Montreal Men

Important detail left out of those films. They are both in French.

Idol Country, the role was in Spanish. Matt Sanchez 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I am sure the dialogue was key to your performance, "Rod." Or was that "Pierre?" 24.18.130.89 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Activities CORRECTION

"Embedded blogger" is completely inappropriate and obviously maligned.

I am officially a "Media Embed". I've produced radio, television and magazine articles since I've been here. I put much of that stuff on my blog, but to limit it to my blog is misleading. There is no such thing as an "embedded blogger".

"Sanchez is a senior at Columbia University, and according to posts on his blog in May through July 2007, is currently an "embedded blogger",[16] first with an American military unit that has traveled from Kuwait into Iraq, and then in July 2007 he switched to a unit in Afghanistan.[17] "

This should be changed. Also the references to the syndicated programs "Hometown Heroes" and "In their Own Words" which are clearly verifiable have been removed. Let's get this issue solved as it is patently false. Matt Sanchez 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, please stop with the incivility. The term "embedded blogger" came from a link that you provided." Matt Sanchez is a Marine reservist and an embedded blogger. His blog posts can be found at his Web site, Matt-Sanchez.com." If there's a better term for you, please provide a source which uses that term. --Elonka 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone knows of a link to a current list of "media embeds", which ought to be available somewhere, please post it. If Mr. Sanchez is officially a media embed it definitely belongs in this article. I'm interested to find a source for other research also, I just can't seem to find one. Typing monkey 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Embedded media go through an application and approval process by the Combined Press Information Center: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/ Under "For The Media" there are links to forms required to be filed, apparently including a requirement for even freelancers to be affiliated with an organization. That affiliation should be included. Harvey 8710 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

the unsubstantiated, consistent and unverified reports of me being an male-escort are a personal attack.

The "evidence" is the macchinations of a few gay activists who plot this stuff at www.cplsanchez.info. I move to have the references removed. We need an answer on this.Matt Sanchez 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say that although your insistence on getting change (seemingly immediately) are admirable, WP does not work on your timeline. Indeed you may remove information but it just as easily can be re-added. Perhaps a little patience for other editors who aren't the subject of the article might be appropriate. I'm not familiar with www.cplsanchez.info [www.cplsanchez.info] nor am I going to look there now but my goal is to help make a better article that is both accurate and enlightening. If the accusations of being a male-escort are invalid then it will be addressed like "although Sanchez has been accused of such no basis has been found" as you are a living person and a subject of an article who is extremely active in it's present development it might be more constructive to try to step back from your life and look at it through the eyes that others use. Maybe look at biographies of others on WP you admire and see how their story unfolds. Even people who died decades ago have their articles continually nuanced and sourced. Another idea would be to post information with reference links that other editors can possibly weave into the article (again on their timeline). Being familiar with a military world where projects are envisioned and executed you're probably all too aware that WP is harshly different and is a civilian-based enterprise where a different persistence is rewarded. Benjiboi 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that a "although Sanchez has been accused of such no basis has been found" format would be acceptable. Repeating rumours, even following it up with a report that they are unfounded spreads the rumour further. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. WjBscribe 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
These are not unfounded rumors. They are based on comments made by Matt Sanchez himself in the op-ed he wrote for Salon and his Alan Colmes interview. You can see this illustrated here in this post from AmericaBlog. It refers to him as a prostitute, using the first-person piece Sanchez wrote for Salon as a source. JMarkievicz2 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a rule that says it should aim to protray a subject accurately. WJBscribe, your desire to avoid tablodization should not extend to omitting information that you find distasteful. That violates Wikipedia's rules. 24.18.130.89 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


AmericaBlog cannot ever be considered a reliable source, unless the topic is John Aravosis or (perhaps) outing. This is the fundamental issue with this article: both sides want to use blogs to buttress their arguments, because it's not something that the mainstream media followed very closely. With the exception of Countdown and Hannity and Colmes, neither of which are really hard news sources, and definitely not NPOV sources, there has not been a whole lot of coverage on the issue. Blogs (by their nature) cannot be used as sources, unless they are written by the subject himself, and the possible CoI must be noted even then. Read WP:BLP thoroughly, as it discusses the issue in some detail. Note that blogs are considered "self-published sources" and BLP specifically prohibits the use of such sources. To directly quote the policy:
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
(Emphasis in original). As for the Salon piece, portions of it are disputed; my recommendation would be to exclude it entirely; this position is likely not going to be popular with either Sanchez or his detractors, but it is equitable. Horologium t-c 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't using Americablog as a source. I was using it to point out that Sanchez's own article was used as a source when John Aravosis identified him as a prostitute. If you go back and read earlier posts from Matt Sanchez, you find that he no longer disputes the Salon article. Confusing, I know. Sanchez spent a considerable amount of time last week trying to restore the Salon article. JMarkievicz2 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Salon piece is disputed only by Sanchez, and he has shifted the nature of his dispute. According to Wikipedia's own rules, the subjects of biographies are not permitted to edit them. That ought to extend to excluding sources by conjuring up "disputes." 24.18.130.89 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well Sanchez's interview with Alan Colmes, Sanchez himself states that he is (or was) a licensed massage therapist but not exclusively for gay men. He stated that the majority of his male clients did not necessarily identify as gay. He says he is not gay. He did advertise in gay publications although not exclusively. He has been a prostitute "some of the darkest times of my life" and that in addition to all of that someone or other people have placed recent escort ads using his name, phone number and/or image. Based on his own words he should be considered a prostitute (or former prostitute) and an escort but not gay, however "gay for pay" or MSM (men who have sex with men) is also appropriate with the disclaimer that Sanchez and many of his clients do not identify as gay. Benjiboi 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is Sanchez's own recorded admission on nationally broadcast / published sources. This is not rumor, it is fact. Even though now denies the fact, he admitted it, repeatedly, and those admissions are public knowledge, are recorded, are validly sourced, and relevant to the topic. In the Alan Colmes interview, this information was actually volunteered by Mr. Sanchez. Even though it may make him uncomfortable (assuming the "Matt Sanchez" posting here is the real McCoy), his admissions regarding his former life as a prostitute and gay porn actor are what brought him national notoriety in the first place and should be mentioned in the article. Typing monkey 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. This material has been unilaterally removed by one administrator here, in violation of several Wikipedia rules. I think it should be restored, and I think that administrator's conduct should be examined by whoever runs Wikipedia. Truthjusticeamericanway 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But wiki has a timeline, so what is that timeline? Matt Sanchez 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

lol. I wouldn't hold your breath! Articles can be built up, torn down or deleted altogether within hours. It can also take days, weeks and years. What seems to stand the test of time is good research from sources that are also considered good. Any reader, in theory, should be able to quickly learn about the subject of an article and investigate further. To aid in this articles should be clear and well sourced, categorized and vetted for accuracy. There is no set timeline and logic to the process except that an article is created and then worked on. Benjiboi 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi

Close but not quite.

1. Alan asked me I found your number in an ad. My response was NO, four of five times. 2. There is a 2nd Colmes interview, that I haven't uploaded yet, and I notice no one else has sought out. In this interview, I clarify that porn was tantamount to prostitution. I would have made that point a lot quicker had I known that so many fanatics would come out of the woodwork

3. Even Alan said I have been very upfront and honest. In fact, I have given more information about myself to the public than most people will ever have the displeasure of doing.

4. I am a licensed Masseur and I wasn't "gay for pay". There are plenty of non-gays who do these types of videos. It's just acting.

In what state are you licenced? 24.18.130.89 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

5. It should be noted that the "gay community" seems to have a particular interest in distorting this record as evidenced by all the homosexuals who constantly attack me. Matt Sanchez 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by your words. You said that you were a prostitute, that many of your male clients did not identify as gay. You said that you are not gay. You are not alone is using these seemingly conflicting statements hence the term MSM (men who have sex with men) was created to specifically address the emerging body of knowledge including the "down low" lifestyle where men have sex with other men but do not identify as gay, often for cultural reasons. I stated pretty clearly that you stated someone else had recently placed escort ads (which should be noted in the article as well) but you said that you had placed escort ads in gay publication although your ads also ran in other (non-gay) publications and your clients did not necessarily identify as gay. I can't speak the "gay community" but I will state that the history of the GLBT movement has been peppered with the outings of seemingly homophobic individuals who are later revealed to be gay themselves. I'm not stating that you are homophobic just that the gay community is used to hypocrisy and used to public figures like George Michael, Mel White and so many others who deny they are gay or actively working to oppose human rights for GLBT people and then are found to be gay themselves. Benjiboi 21:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the article presently, it can be stated "Sanchez admitted to placing escort ads in gay publications (amongst others) and being a prostitute for male clients "some of the darkest days of my life," although many of his clients, and Sanchez, do not consider themselves gay." If there is a source that denies these statements then it should be referenced and included as well contrasting what was stated previously. Benjiboi 21:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? What do I have to do with Mel White (who is that) and the Singer guy. Isn't he gay or a drug addict or something? What the hell do I care about the GLBT community or their take on "human rights"? What in the world are you talking about? When did we throw in the smear term homophobic? I'm not following you at all. I couldn't care less about the LGBT "community" boy George or George Michael or any of that. If you have some LGBT agenda you should say so up front.

I was talking about the people who consumed the videos, we were talking about the marketing of Rod Majors and the ads we produced etc... There were phone lines, chat lines etc. Matt Sanchez 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

On Salon.com, you compared yourself to Rich Merritt, an ex-marine porn star, prostitute, and drug addict who attempted suicide. 24.18.130.89 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rich Merritt attempted suicide? That's news to me. I don't think he was "prostitute" either, but I do know he was a porn star. That with the whole Marine thing is where I compared myself. Not to mention the ensueing controversya. Rich would never call himself an "ex-Marine" that would be "Former-Marine." Are you claiming now that I attempted suicide? Who are you anayway? You didn't sign. Matt Sanchez 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in his book, or so I have read from the reviews of it. Yes, he was a prostitute, just as you were. The euphemism is "escort," but in your radio interview with Alan Colmes he asked you twice if you'd been a prostitute and you said yes. You are an ex-marine. I reserve the term "former marine" for those who have conducted themselves honorably. 24.18.130.89 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, so much for unbiased. I get some coward who won't even show himself explaining what a Marine is and insulting my inegrity. Does that constitute a "personal attack?Matt Sanchez

I am curious as to why you describe yourself as a "former marine." In your article for the National Review, you are described as a USMC reserve corporal. Now you say you are not a marine. Which is it? Surely you should know whether or not you're a marine or not. 24.18.130.89 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I also to be accused of being a drug addict? Since now I have been unfavorably compared to George Michael and Rich Merritt? Is this the next "evidence" that will come up?Matt Sanchez 01:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has accused you of being a drug addict. You wrote an article in which you compared yourself to an ex-marine who was a porn star, a prostitute, and a drug addict, and who attempted suicide. Why did you make the comparison? 24.18.130.89 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GEE, it's self evident. Two Marines in porn. Pretty obvious comparison for me. Gannon also, apparently, had some kind of Military/Marine issue. This of course illustrates the grasping at straws method of "collecting evidence." I made the comparison to Rich Merritt because it is indeed valid. But I have never used drugs, never attempted suicide, never was an "ex-Marine" and was never a prostitute. Mattsanchez 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Category

I should have Christian under my category.

http://www.matt-sanchez.com/religion/index.html

I am currently on the exploratory committee to bring the Bible marathon to Manhattan. I wrote this article for Human Events: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21269 I was explicit about my faith on Kevin McCullough, a born again Christian brother, the interview no one mentions on this board.Matt Sanchez 01:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)a

Sexual Orientation

I move to have the following struck from the record:

"Though he has appeared in gay porn films, Sanchez identifies himself as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.[1]"

Sexual orientation is irrelevant and not part of the controversy. The films are fake. Videos are NOT reality, so it should strike no one as odd that I am not a lumberjack in the Quebec forest, or a Farmer, or a cop, or a Cowboy, or a hustler. All of which are roles I played in these videos. The videos are fake. The sex is fake, staged, calculated, rehearsed, etc... The above statement should be removed from the article as it casts doubt on my sincerity and is personally disparaging. Matt Sanchez 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you want the article not to mention that you says you are heterosexual? Even though it covers your participation in male-on-male sex scenes in pornographic films? WjBscribe 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article should mention that he says he's heterosexual. Truthjusticeamericanway 06:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I want that line remvoed. It is not pertinent, and the films don't indict me as anything other than a performer. You may thing that is compromising, but you have not had sex on film and possibly do not know that it just isn't a big deal for the performers.

I further submit that if I were a woman, the issue of lesbianism simply wouldn't come up. The sexual obsession with simplistic labels really does not apply to the world of adult porn. Unless you have been in porn or someone else on here has, I would ask you to defer to me and respect my request. A perfectly reasonable request. Otherwise the above comment skews my integrity.Matt Sanchez 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, This shows your lack of objectivity in this matter. I do not, in any way, feel compromised by what you term "male-on-male" scenes. If you are a homosexual, like many of the editors on this board, then you feel these actions, even in the context of a video, are self-defining. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in the end, it really is no big deal, unless you're a homosexual activist. I move for the removal of the line. Mattsanchez 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your homosexuality is irrelevant. What matters is your homosexual conduct, first as a porn star and then as a prostitute. Those things are verified by several reliable sources. They (the porn films and the escort career) are key to your notability. Whether you were faking your homosexuality then, or faking your non-homosexuality now, is anyone's guess and cannot be verified so it should go unmentioned in the article. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Current status

Elonka: Jack Kelly over at Real Cleara Politics, refers to me by what I am "A freelance journalist"

Marine reservist Matt Sanchez is a freelance journalist embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq. He thinks most mainstream media reporting from Iraq is "completely wrong." [[1]]

Please note, freelance journalist is the title on my Centcom press pass.Matt Sanchez 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable sources. Neither are press passes. By the way, the title on my press pass is "Reverend."Typing monkey 06:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that blogs are not acceptable source, except when they break Sanchez's way. Funny how that works here, isn't it? 24.18.130.89 06:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The person above will not identify himself and is spamming. Can we remove him? Also, the realclearpolitics article ran in Yahoo News and Reuters. I move for my definition to be "Freelance Journalist" Mattsanchez 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears you generally write opinion pieces and some amateur audio/video work, is there more verification for your status? You said you aren't a professional journalist, so I assume you have no formal training. Are you involved with any press associations which register freelance writers? The affiliation for your assignment approval might be helpful Harvey 8710 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Inquisitional Tone

This editorial board has many biases and smacks more of a prosecution rather than a fact finding expedition.

Current status should be updated with my current projects In Their Own Words and Hometown Heroes. Too many editors wish to report what it cannot substantiate and ignore what is substantiated and referenced. Matt Sanchez 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to some reliable sources that have discussed these projects? WjBscribe 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed in the 2nd Alan Colmes interview, the Martha Zoller Show, Pajamas Media, http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/matt_sanchez_from_iraq_rinse_a.php,

Human Events mentions it: http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Matt%20Sanchez Mattsanchez 15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez's Marine Status

In this discussion, Sanchez has described himself as a "former marine." Therefore, he should not be characterized as a "marine reservist" in the article. 24.18.130.89 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but we'd need a reliable source that reported that Matt Sanchez was no longer a marine reservist before the article should be changed. WjBscribe 07:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
In the archived discussions here, you have accepted Sanchez's word on a number of issues. Now you do not accept his word. Why the shift in position? The only difference apparent to me is that this piece of information is not favorable to Sanchez. You also have unilaterally deleted references to his prostitution, which he acknowledged in his article for Salon.com (mention of which you also excised from the article) and a radio interview. It is curious that all of this goes in one direction. Why might that be? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My Marine status has never been "former Marine" I'm not sure where you saw that. I am a Marine reservist currently with an IMA status and quite deployable.

The Marine Corps Times termed you as being on Individual Ready Reserve status. You yourself, in this discussion thread, called yourself a "former marine." The Marine Corps Times also stated that you'd told them that you had been transferred to reserve status in 2005 because of a medical condition. It would be worthwhile if you could find a reliable source that would reconcile the published reports with your varying statements on these issues. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan Colmes "prostitution" admission was a reference to making porn films that were "marketed to gay men." This issue has been beaten like a dead horse. Mattsanchez 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the interview speaks for itself and doesn't need editorial comment after the fact explaining what was meant, rather than what was said.Typing monkey 06:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is beyond rational dispute that Sanchez was a prostitute. He admitted it in an article and on the radio. Wikipedia has a "common sense" rule that, in spite of anything else the self-appointed dictator here, WJBscribe, might say, ought to rule the day when it comes to this stuff. An article that fails to mention his prostitution is quite simply a lie. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An Ethics Question

I understand from reading the history of this discussion that Sanchez has had direct communication with some of the editors. Phone calls and letters, and possibly personal visits. Elonka, you appear to be one of them. In the interest of determining neutrality, which is a Wikipedia rule, shouldn't the full content of those communications be disclosed? Truthjusticeamericanway 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I can categorically assure you that I have never been in off-wiki discussions with Matt Sanchez - I have neither received such messages from him nor sent him any. WjBscribe 07:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't either. Aleta 07:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good enough, but what about others? What is the Wikipedia rule? Given that this is a highly controversial article, shouldn't anyone who's been exchanging mail, phone calls, and maybe personal visits, be asked to disclose the full extent of the contacts? Truthjusticeamericanway 07:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I ran a search and found an interesting post on Matt Sanchez's blog. Quoted below:

I spoke with the people over at Wikipedia and to my surprise, the Internet's 9th most visited site (11th on the weekends) is based out of Northern Florida and is administrated by no more than a staff of six people working tirelessly. I'll be writing on Wiki in the weeks to come, but I did want to point out what an amazing success a small idea has become. There are so many things to say about Wikipedia, it is mindboggling. So, I'll let some of the stats do the talking, while I find time to write the interview of the nuts and bolts of one of the biggest phenomenons of the internet.

Is Matt Sanchez getting special treatment because he befriended some of the administrators? JMarkievicz2 07:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What? That is ridiculous. There are way more than six administrators. See Wikipedia:List of administrators. Aleta 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez's blog post refers to the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, not to Wikipedia's administrators. WjBscribe 08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that? His post doesn't say that. Did he tell you off-line, perhaps in a phone call, an e-mail, or a personal visit? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Way to go on assuming good faith. I told you I had never received messages from Matt Sanchez off-wiki. I know that because "a staff of six people" "based out of Northern Florida" describes the Foundation Staff at the time fairly accurately. However there are over a thousand Wikipedia administrators spread across the world. Which do you think he's refering to? WjBscribe 08:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. You see, I tend to respect verification and fact, as opposed to supposition, bias, and a lack of neutrality. Sanchez never mentioned the Wikimedia Foundation, but you tell us he did so. What is your source for the information? It sounds like a case of "synthesis," which is another violation of Wikipedia's rules. You might consider brushing up, huh? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come off it. Of course its synthesis - I wouldn't include that in an article for that reason. But this isn't the article its a discussion page - you asked for an explanation of the post, I have explained it. WjBscribe 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Do Wikipedia rules such as neutrality, good faith, consensus, and common sense apply to an administrator's conduct on the discussion pages? And are the standards different for administrators and others? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The administrators at Wikipedia tend to display a "circle the wagons" mentality. In administering the Sanchez article, they have consistently tilted very far in his direction while displaying blunt harshness toward those who might differ. For instance, WJBscribe's tone in response to my initial query here was smart-alecky; another administrator warned me that my criticisms of WJBscribe would get me tossed out of Wikipedia the very next time I wrote something (s)he didn't like; WJBscribe threatened another poster (typing monkey) with a ban. Curious, isn't it, that all of this stuff has been in one direction while Sanchez himself has been allowed to continue attacking those who post material he disagrees with? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm very curious about it, that's for sure. In a previous discussion page, Elonka referred to back-channel communications with him. And it would seem that there's plenty of back-channel stuff between administrators and senior editors at Wikipedia. Combine that with the extraordinary things that have happened in this thread like ignoring all kinds of rules on Sanchez's behalf, and doing nothing about his constant and ongoing personal attacks, and I must say that my antennae are up and waving in the wind. I think someone at a very senior level of Wikipedia should investigate this situation, and the sooner the better. Truthjusticeamericanway 07:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll go on record to state that I haven't talked with anybody about Sanchez. I also don't see this article as being overly controversial or breaking/bending all sorts of rules. I think actually almost the opposite because either the subject of this bio article or someone pretending to be him is actively campaigning to remove and include information to present an unbalanced view portraying the article's subject without more currently controversial material about him having sex with men as a prostitute and the whole Ann Coulter issues which I'm not yet familiar. Benjiboi 08:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between controversial and embarrassing. Sanchez's prostitution is verified BY HIMSELF in two places -- Salon.com and the Alan Colmes show. This is not "controversial," yet it is highly embarrassing to him. That's unfortunate for Sanchez, but it is true, and it is verified. So it should be included. And WJBscribe's unilateral deletion of that material violated Wikipedia's own rules. Truthjusticeamericanway 08:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Truthjusticeamericanway hardly seems "neutral". He is more interested in "controversial issues and innuendo than fact. The Salon article is ridiculously not an admission of anything other than a similiarity in "sex scandals". The fact that Truthjustice keeps bringing this up is just desperation. This is PWOK's sock puppet. Mattsanchez 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe: Please Answer My Question

When I posted it on your talk page you directed me here, saying "this should really take place on the article's talk page so everyone is involved."

You unilaterally deleted any mention of Sanchez's prostitution, even though he admitted it in his own artile on Salon.com (mention of which you also deleted) and in a radio interview. When I challenged it, you wrote: "In particular the problems of using primary sources where these have not been picked up by reliable secondary sources and the problems of undue weight in a biography about a living person. Unless a neutral way is found to add the interview to the article and place it in context, Wikipedia's policies do not allow its addition - especially not in such a way as to add "prostitute" to the section heading (which gives it far too much prominence in the article)."

I asked: "Exactly what do you mean by "a neutral way ... to add the interview to the article and place it in context?" And what about the Salon.com article in which he admitted to having been a prostitute?"

I repeat that question. Also, I would like to know, in view of Wikipedia's rule about editing by consensus, what gave you the right to unilaterally make the deletion? Do administrators at Wikipedia have a special exemption from rules that are otherwise applied to mere contributors? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Right the answer to your first question is contained in several posts above but I will summarise. You might want to read the relevant polices on neutrality and undue weight. One of the greatest pitfals is if Wikipedia starts deciding what is important enough to mention from primary sources. The evidence about Sanchez's past as an escort comes from primary sources. Had these been covered in secondary sources (e.g. newspaper reports) inclusion wouldn't be too problematic - just a question of putting it in context with his later denials. But so far no one has provided reliable coverage by third parties that has picked up on the radio interview or salon article, which creates a problem - it would appear that secondary sources have no found the matter sufficiently notable to mention. Which is why I feel it falls short of our inclusion criteria. And given this is an article about a living person, those standards are imposed very harshly.
To your second question, my removal of content was done as an ordinary editor - being an adminstrator gives me no special authority. However, administrators are charged with enforcing Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy - using blocks and page protection if necessary. I take this responsibility seriously and will block those who continue to violate BLP after warnings. WjBscribe 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, which I interpret to mean that, once you decide to become involved, Wikipedia is no longer a "user-edited encyclopedia" but WJBscribe's personal fiefdom. Quite a show here. Truthjusticeamericanway 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, there is no evidence, except that reported on blogs, that Sanchez is in porn videos. Sure, people could go rent them and watch, but that would be original research and he appeeared under pseudonyms. So you might as well go ahead and eliminate any mention of his porno too. Face it, that's what you want to do anyway. So you might as well get it over with. Down the memory hole at Wikipedia! 24.18.130.89 11:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There are extensive reliable sources, including Sanchez's own admission, that he has appeared in porn videos.[2] It is not original research. --Elonka 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No admission of prostitution

Outside of porn films there's no admission of prostitution and no third party verifiable source. There have, however, been fabrications of photos and ads that supposedly link me with a massage ad. These were created by slanderous individuals Mattsanchez 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a third party verifiable source, the Marine Times article:

During a radio interview with Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes last week, Sanchez acknowledged working as a male prostitute, but told Marine Corps Times he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003.

This meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on biographical articles and there is absolutely no reason it should not be included in this article.Typing monkey 05:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. JMarkievicz2 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, but WJBscribe has made it clear that, for purposes of this article, Wikipedia is not a user-edited encyclopedia. His whims ... er, considered judgments ... are final. Truthjusticeamericanway 09:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep missing the Salon article (could you put a link to it here?) but for me his own words in the interview are plenty and then the Marine Times article simply confirms it. Article should reflect either that he was a male prostitute but now denies it (if there is a good source for the denial) or that he was a male prostitute but "he hasn’t had homosexual sex since he joined the Corps in 2003." It should also note that neither Sanchez or "many of his male clients identify as gay." Article should be accurate, there is no need for rumors or speculation. Benjiboi 07:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, here's the Salon piece.Typing monkey 07:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
"Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors." Seems clear enough to me. Benjiboi 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, sounds like a bad edit, and pretty desperate act. I originally put Rich Merritt and not Jeff Gannon. I wouldn't have compared myself to Jeff Gannon. Also, Marine Corps Times amended their original article and removed the prostitution charge. Here we go again. Still trying to fit a square peg into a round nuthole.Matt Sanchez 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd Alan Colmes Interview

I very clearly clarify my original statement and set the record straight. Please note, the absence of that interview in this entire discussion and from my detractors.

People who are trying to improve this article are not necessarily your "detractors." The article should include your whole story, and you are famous for being a controversial figure. That controversy is the only reason there is a Wikipedia article about you in the first place. I sincerely admire your drive and realize that it's difficult to start a new career in your mid 30s but the article is not about your accomplishments as a journalist, a career which you've barely begun. I wish you well in that new career, but I also wish you would understand that people are interested in you because of your extraordinary personal history, which you've bravely admitted in the past. That's the kind of integrity that makes a good journalist, and it's something you should hold on to, not run away from. The article must include references to the things that you have done and said that brought you attention in the first place or it is sub-standard according to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Typing monkey 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I would go further and say that anyone's wishes or feelings about Sanchez are irrelevant here, or ought to be. The article ought to be complete, and should be worded and edited in a neutral fashion, through a consensus of editors and wish an iron-clad commitment to telling the whole truth. Unfortunately, that has not happened here. Wikipedia's senior editors and administrators have been notable non-neutral; they have twisted this article so far away from the truth, and in doing so have ignored so many of their states rules, that it's hard to believe this is happening. It's shocking, really. I never knew that Wikipedia would countenance a disaster like this one here. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the record straight and keeping the bias out. It's obvious that there are several "detractors" here. Printing innuendo or bias does not uphold the wiki standard and I'm setting the record straight. As for journalism? I'll stick to op-eds, feature articles and production. Typing Monkey, you're "opinion on the difficulties of starting a career are silly, tedious and patronizing, stick to the facts at hand. Matt Sanchez 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you must stop attacking other editors, or you will risk being blocked from editing. Please try to exhibit a better standard of behavior. --Elonka 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UT

The attack is from Typemonkey and his patronizing paternalism. What does he know about "My career" or what I don't or don't want to do. Just stick to the facts and stop with the rumors, innuendo and pseudo concern Matt Sanchez 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly did not intend to be patronizing. I was trying to be polite. My reference to your "journalistic career" had to do with the fact that you seem to only want this page to advertise your current writing projects, which are not something that you are "notable" for. You are not well-known for your writing. Your notoriety has to do with your unusual personal history.Typing monkey 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Multi-lingual

I move to have the fact that I speak four languages included into the article. It was here before and has since been removed, not sure why. Mattsanchez 16:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says this? Aleta 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Internationally Syndicated Radio Shows

We are in Australia and the US.

Salon.com not an Admission

The same people keep re-hashing the same criticism. Mattsanchez 16:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"I won't deny it" is an admission to any reasonable reader. "I won't admit it" would have been a denial.Typing monkey 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. JMarkievicz2 07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The meaning is clear. It should be especially clear to WJBscribe, who has made it clear that he, and only he, will decide what this article says. In discussing the Alan Colmes interview, he wrote that context is important. Truthjusticeamericanway 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"I won't deny it." is not wanting to add fire to the flames. It's called diplomacy. I'm clear and precise in my writing. both of you are interpreting, projecting or just crossing your fingers. Matt Sanchez 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Vetting Process

New editors pop up and claim to have all kinds of authority. Is there some kind of vetting process?Matt Sanchez 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, as I'm sure you know, anyone can edit Wikipedia (at least unless/until they vandalize or are uncivil enough to get themselves banned). Aleta 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. Anyone who does anything that WJBscribe disapproves of will find their content deleted and their membership canceled. As it applies to this article, Wikipedia is in no way a "user-edited encyclopedia." Truthjusticeamericanway 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Horologium has quoted parts of it, but I suggest you read WP:BLP in its entirety so you can understand what the policies are with respect to biographies of living persons. The only things WJB have done have been in keeping with WP:BLP and no personal attacks. Aleta 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. In my opinion, the administration and editing of this article have been just awful. You evidently are an experienced "Wikipedian." I am not. It is clear to me that those who know their way around here have twisted Wikipedia's rules to allow Sanchez to edit his own article throough proxies among the administrators, who are acting as his protectors and promoters. Meanwhile, the rules against "personal attacks" go curiously unenforced against Sanchez, who has been attacking anyone who differs with him from the very start of his participation. I think Wikipedia's terrible administration of this article is destroying its reputation. Truthjusticeamericanway 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add that WP:BIO applies also. "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." The argument that the nationally broadcast and published admissions of prostitution are off limits are not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Typing monkey 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LiveLeak.com and current events

I have an agreement with Liveleak.com to supply content for a Live Leak channel.

Here's the link http://www.liveleak.com/channel/MattSanchez

It doesn't meet notability guidelines. This is an encyclopedia article, not a résumé. Typing monkey 05:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this prob shouldn't be mentioned in the article. However it is a good external link to include. WjBscribe 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that WJBscribe didn't bring up the Wikipedia prohibition on citing blogs. Nope, that only applies to blogs that Sanchez doesn't like. Not that Sanchez is permitted to write his own article. Instead, Wikipedia's administrators act as his publicity and promotional agent. There are rules, and then there are rules. Quite a deal you run here. Truthjusticeamericanway 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
WjB didn't bring up the prohibition on citing blogs because it's not being cited as a reference. However, as noted in WP:BLP:
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
(emphasis in the original) This means that Sanchez's personal works are acceptable as external links. Other self-published works (like JoeMyGod or Pwok's personal attack site) are not acceptable either as sources or as external links. Horologium t-c 14:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, Wikipedia's administrators and editors are acting as Sanchez's protectors and promoters, and facilitating his editing of his own article and the exclusion of verified, truthful information. This breaks all kinds of your rules, yet Wikipedia turns a blind eye to it. This is sad, and it does Wikipedia no good to so blatantly break its own rules to protect him. Truthjusticeamericanway 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It speaks to "Current Status"

Pwok is back

Watch him melt.

Step one: Accuse everyone of being part of a conspiracy.

2nd Colmes Interview

So, no one wants to post the 2nd interview?Matt Sanchez 19:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it as long as the first is also included.Typing monkey 19:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I'm waiting for the constant must-include's and must not include's as well as personal jabs to simmer down a bit. I do think these talk pages are being abused so have focused on other articles in need of editing where a spirit of cooperation seems more evident. I'll know things are headed in a better direction when the corrected information about Mateo being a male prostitute for men is included with the balancing information that he and many of his clients didn't think of themselves as gay and his escort ads weren't exclusively in gay publications. Until then the article is not accurate. Benjiboi 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't want to be called Mateo by Benjiboi or anyone else on this board. Do we know each other "benjiboy"? And then you people wonder why I get annoyed. You're not only invasive, intrusive and malicious, you're disrespectful. Matt Sanchez 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I apologize. Amongst the things you said while describing the gay pornstars you most like to work with was that "we" should call you Mateo. These are your words so seems queer you would label me as "invasive, intrusive, malicious, and disrespectful." Perhaps there are other issues going on besides your gay-for-pay male prostitution past? Benjiboi 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you post it somewhere, if it is so important to you? Aatombomb 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I didn't write that interview. [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)], but that interview was written by some hack at the studio. [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)] Matt Sanchez 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting you (again) your personal comments about myself (and other editors for those willing to read through the archived talk pages) are "malicious and disrespectful." I didn't suggest you wrote that article so your comment is incorrect from there. I can't speak to anyone's sexuality (even yours) no matter who you date and have sex with, but I will point out that you seem to be taking "pot shots" at others referring to editors as "catty gay men" and "sodomites," two phrases that some would have little problem applying to you. I would hope that you learned in the Marines that actions have consequences and you have to accept consequences for your actions and decisions. Perhaps some justice for all your outbursts on these pages is that they are enshrined for all to see what honor you bring to this process. I will second exactly what Aatombomb has suggested and I have consistently recommended along with others that you post a link to these pages potential interviews and other material that you think is suitable and up to wikipedia standards. Benjiboi 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Aatombomb: if you're an "editor" the Colmes interviews should be important to you. Matt Sanchez 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you claim it clears everything up so neatly, post it already. Aatombomb 05:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Escorting allegations

(pulling this out of archives again) This paragraph was temporarily deleted for discussion, but we haven't been able to get consensus on putting it back in. Could anyone with an opinion, please indicate clearly, whether you'd like to see it re-included, whether you think it should not be included, or whether you'd like to see it changed? Thanks, --Elonka 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez has given conflicting statements about the escorting allegations. In an op-ed piece on March 8 on Salon.com, Sanchez took note of the charges that he had advertised "services as a male escort" and commented, "I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors."[5] However, on the same day he posted in his blog, disputing the salon.com version of his words, and saying that the salon.com editors had added the phrase, "I won't deny it."[6] In a March 9, 2007 interview with Alan Colmes, when Sanchez was asked if he had worked as a male prostitute, he replied, "Yes."[7] However, on April 9, Sanchez subsequently denied that he had been a male escort, saying, "Not true."[8] During the Colmes interview, Colmes told Sanchez that he had found an ad which showed Sanchez advertising massage services in the November 19, 2004 issue of the New York Blade, and that the phone number in the ad was the same number on which they had contacted Sanchez. Sanchez, for his part, insisted that it was not his ad, and that he had only had his current cellphone for a year.[7]

Gee, this corroborates what I've been saying all the time. The problem is that by introducing the Male prostitution allegation, you're smearing me with innuendo. Wiki should report facts. Why not put that "matt says he's not a drug addict", so people can speculate about whether or not I am a drug addict? MSNBC accused me as being part of a "greater conspiracy" why not print that? It's sourced. Why not compare me to Jeff Haagert, I don't understand the comparison, but some have made it, and they are sourced. Matt Sanchez 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we're not trying to smear you with innuendo, we're trying to clarify your own statements, which you have to admit, have been pretty contradictory. Like when Alan Colmes asked flat out, "You were a male prostitute?" and you said, "Yes."[3] Then later you changed your statement.[4] And to be honest, even on this talkpage, you've never clearly said, "I wasn't a prostitute." Your statements have been more in the nature of saying, "I never admitted it." But this is all moot, because regardless of whether or not the allegation of prostitution is true, in terms of the Wikipedia article, we still have to stick with what is sourced. Which is why I think we should include both your "Yes," and your later retraction. We're not repeating rumors, we're just sticking with what you've said publicly. --Elonka 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds reasonable to me. It's factual, sourced, and neutral. Typing monkey 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a better written version would be a good start and certainly should go in the article. I've had a little time to start to dig through the non-blog sources and it seems like Sanchez came to notice for his pro-military writings which then made him "darling" of the GOP (being a good-looking and a well-spoken minority might have helped). His second wave of media attention came on the heels of his award revealing his gay escort/prostitution/porn past which is held in tension with Ann Coulter's "faggot" remark at the high-profile event and his subsequent confirmations and denials as well as the military investigations into his past. The entire article really needs work starting with the lede. Benjiboi 04:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Benjiboi, if you have suggestions for clearer language, then write it. I don't think a clearer picture can be drawn. The paragraph above sets forth all the details with sources. Again, if you can improve it, do so, but I think it is fine for inclusion as written.Typing monkey 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I will try a rewrite but it may take a day or so. Meanwhile the denial "Not true." is sourced with a blog and needs to be removed and replaced with a better source.[5] Benjiboi 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I have with the quoted paragraph is the assertion that Salon.com editors added the phrase "I won't deny it" to his article. I checked his blog and couldn't find anything that supported this claim. JMarkievicz2 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, looks like pages have been moved around in his blog, here are updated links: Sanchez affirming that the Randy Thomas transcript is accurate:[6] and also here at this talkpage:[7] Note: We can't of course use the talkpage diff in the article, but I'm offering at as a source just for the purposes of this discussion. As for a source that Sanchez said the Salon editors changed his words, check here:[8] --Elonka 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that unless Salon reprints a correction or another non-blog source states Salon.com editors added the phrase "I won't deny it" to his article that part should go. If we add that Sanchez's blog states Salon.com editors added the phrase then there needs to be a balancing statement that Salon.com denies it or didn't respond when asked (something verifiable) or, possibly, a source that indicates Salon has been accused of slanderous editorializing before. Benjiboi 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
After checking those sources I still couldn't find where he says salon editors added the phrase "I won't deny it." But even if he did write that on his blog, including that line would violate WP guidelines, because WP:BLP prohibits the subject of an article from making claims about third parties.
That line is also problematic, because it implies Salon changed the article without Sanchez's approval. But based on comments he made upthread it's clear that they consulted him before making changes. JMarkievicz2 23:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the point several times that getting paid for porn is prostitution. And now we're back to square one on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

And the point has been made that the interview speaks for itself and editorial comment after the fact, on these discussion pages, is irrelevant.Typing monkey 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez's alleged escort website

Does anyone know what his male escort website was? I understand it's since been removed or even replaced so dates it went up & came down also appreciated. Benjiboi 04:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told to read the archives. By you, I think! Give it a go! I tend to agree with Messr. Sanchez, the same things keep being rehashed over and over and over again. Typing monkey 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping someone simply knew what it was and when it was around. I don't recall telling you to read the archives and frankly because of all the circle-ish conversations I don't think I would have. If no one prompts the name in a day or two I'll dig through. It goes to the whole was he engaging as a prostitute while also in the Us Marines. I don't know simply trying to establish some timelines. I will also point out that, to me, the way to bring an end to constantly rehashing the "same things" is a well-written balanced and neutral article that is well sourced (and presumably researched). Benjiboi 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Benjiboi, please read the archives before making more vague ideations about how things ought to be. Do it for the kids. Do it for your mom. Do it because you're an editor and you ought to have read all that before you started writing. Or warning others about how disruptive they are. Thanks ever so.Typing monkey 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree that editors need to read through the past archives before editing an article, indeed many never utilize the talk pages at all. My understanding is that archives are for closed discussions but because Sanchez was writing, editing and utilizing talk pages i can understand why they are so long for such a small span of time.Benjiboi
Disagree that archives are for "closed discussions." It's a controversial subject and there has been much discussion. Sometimes archives are created simply to keep the discussion page from becoming a half-mile scroll. Archived discussions are not necessarily closed, dead, or dealt with. As an example, Elonka recently revived proposed language from the archives for discussion regarding the admission and subsequent retraction regarding escorting/prostitution. Also, archives should not be ignored in determining whether or not a consensus has been reached. Lastly, please go back and sign your posts if you forget. Typing monkey 05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. For those looking for the information, Sanchez apparently used to place ads as "Excellent Top" and he a related website http://excellent-top.com/, the access which has since been blocked by the site owner. This is likely the same ad referenced in the Colmes interview and comparing information from the porn site before it was removed unearthed some pretty compelling information but I'm not sure if it warrants much research but it matches information to a Matt Ayala Sanchez with the same birthdate. So might be worth including if reliable sources confirm. Benjiboi 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for neutral. Benjiboy has already pinned this site on me. [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)] Matt Sanchez 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan Colmes referenced a "No Regrets Massage Ad". Now, Benjiboy accuses me of being "Excellent-Top.com" AND of blocking the access to the site. But he has found the site despite my supposed efforts to thwart him. [personal attack removed - WjBscribe 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)] Alan Colmes looks up my number on Google and magically he pegs it to me. A number that wasn't even mine. Did it occur to anyone WHY Alan would look up a phone number? I said the number didn't belong to me, but Alan played a "gotcha" with me on national radio. Now you people think this is "sourced". What makes Alan's allegations or "discoverty" a "source"??? Matt Sanchez 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are out of line. Perhaps your missing the point of these talk pages. They address content issue for the article. The above information is being vetted to see what, if any, merit there is for inclusion in this article. The "balanced and neutral" aspect is to see if there are reliable sources to justify including it as past editors have claimed, or not, hence my statement "might be worth including if reliable sources confirm." At this point (July 2007) its inclusion seems premature at least. There is a lot of compelling evidence but little of it is usable for the purposes of wikipedia. If you are not the website owner, did not prostitute/escort as "Excellent Top" and use the related website http://excellent-top.com/ then you really are making it more of issue than it is. If however, you did do those things it's pretty likely that that information will come out in one form or another that is reliably sourced for inclusion in the article. Benjiboi 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

American Christian

I also believe the category American Christian should be added to my box. On Kevin McCullough I was quite explicit about my faith. Also the Human Events article "The Prophet Loves You" is fairly indicative of where I stand. Matt Sanchez 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject has spoken, written and organized in Christian events. It should be in my bio. Matt Sanchez 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.matt-sanchez.com/religion/index.html

Human Events: The Prophet Loves You

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21269

Kevin McCullough Interview on radio. It's in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

The category applies to "notable" American Christians. The article is not about the subject's religion, he's not a pastor or theologian.Typing monkey 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is not a "pastor or theologian", but she has written on Christian themes several times, as have I. The category is currently in her article. The McCullough interview is very explicit and thorough about faith. Matt Sanchez 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal and credibility

The source of the Keith Olbermann article was ultra-left-wing gay liberal Max Blumenthal who writes for many left-wing sites including the Huffington Post. It should be noted, somewhere in the article, that Blumenthal

1. Never met me

2. Never asked me a question.

3. Was the original source for the prostitution allegation

4. Sourced left-wing gay blogs

5. Claimed I was part of some greater Republican conspiracy, which turned out to be a total lie.

Matt Sanchez 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal is not the original source for the prostitution allegations. In this Countdown segment and on his blog at Huffingtonpost.com he reported information that he found online at a blog called JoeMyGod. This blog entry credited another blog with getting the information first and contained a link to an archived version of the Excellent-Top.com escort page that was first discovered by posters at DataLounge. At the time, the archived escort page contained pictures that appeared on the original Matt Sanchez blog as well as an audio recording of Matt Sanchez. JMarkievicz2 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Joemygod as a Source??? LOL=

Joemygod is obviously not a neutral, unbiased or even stable source. He doesn't even publish his full name. Where is his accountability? Who is he? He's definitely a militant, pro-gay, pro-drug-use, anti-conservative, vile man. I spoke to him directly when this started and he was extremely hostile, angry and caddy with me, despite the fact that I was fairly straight-forward with him.

My pictures are all over the net as is my voice. I'm not entirely sure that's my voice, but it does sound like dialog from a video. The fact that MSNBC sourced Joemygod is already pretty shoddy. Blumenthal did not mention Excellent-Top.com, which is different from the three other sites that have been attributed to me. Colmes mentioned "No Regrets Massage". I specifically told Colmes that I've seen my pictures as far as Australia.

Blumenthal, a leftist-gay activist, obviously has an ax to grind and the Countdown segment is a hit piece. The gay-porn, hypocrisy and self-righteous outrage came principally from the "gay community" rather than the mainstream media. Given the infantile, low standards of gay porn, gay "media" and the poor quality of "gay journalism" the likes of Out and Genre, no one can take this stuff seriously.

Matt Sanchez 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While I have no problem examining a source, I fail to see how these comments clarify anything. The subject, by his own admission, has little basis for journalistic critique and apparently little foundation in principles of the profession. It's a much better idea to just stick with the facts - comments like these can only raise questions about the subject's own credibility and makes it much more difficult to assist in editing this entry and dealing directly with facts. Harvey 8710 18:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

International Socialist Organization

You wrongly identified the ISO as an "anti-war" group. According to their own definition they are:

The International Socialist Organization (ISO) is a socialist organization in the United States. The group identifies with the politics of International Socialism and the Marxist political tradition that American socialist writer and activist Hal Draper called "socialism from below".[9]

This group is not anti-war, they are simply militant Marxists.

Matt Sanchez 12:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Credentials

http://www.cpnys.org/links/Matt_Sanchez_in_Iraq.html

Recent Events

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/reporting_from_fob_falcon.asp

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/31/blogging-from-baghdad-matt-sanchez-checks-in-at-fob-falcon/ Matt Sanchez 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=7387

See Also

A couple of these categories don't apply


  • Don't ask, don't tell


  • United States Army Reserve

I'm not in the Army Reserves, I'm in the Marine reserves.

Don't ask Don't tell did not apply to my case nor was it among the allegations of the original inquiry by the Marine Corps.

Milblogger should be one of the categories.

The following are all reputable national publications and should figure into my current activities.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1874712/posts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/rss_jack_kelly.xml

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/

Don't ask, don't tell was added to provide context for the atmosphere of how homosexuality allegations are dealt with and is a more encyclopedic way to address the issue than "Gays in the Military." Marine Forces Reserve has replaced United States Army Reserve. Benjiboi 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Homosexual slant

There is no context for Don't Ask Don't Tell in my investigation. DADT isn't even mentioned. DADT should be removed, since I'm not a "gay in the military". You can smear someone else with that label.

Matt Sanchez 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As was stated above "Don't ask, don't tell" was added to provide context for the atmosphere of how homosexuality allegations are dealt with and the current atmosphere against gays in the military. If the article suggests you were a part of a DADT investigation it is distinct and separate from the See Also section which is there to illuminate the general reader about related subjects to the article. Per WP "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." Benjiboi 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, the allegations of homosexuality in the military don't concern my case, and this is another case of the homosexual biased influence in this article. Is there anyone else here who objects to removing DADT from this article? 193.219.255.33 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of articles in the "See also" section doesn't imply you're gay or that your case was processed as a DADT one, they are there to aid the reader - not the subject - of an article. If anything editors have quite patiently entertained your many requests and demands and worked to ensure that the article is accurate as possible. This has been an uphill process as you have stood as a gate-keeper endlessly challenging perceived negative material from being used and insisting other material be added. Benjiboi 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been an uphill battle because of a coordinated effort to smear me. I've asked to put "Culture Wars" in the "See Also" and none of the "patient editors" could understand why. Now, I'm to understand that DADT gives "context", even though it does not apply to allegations against me.

Who made the decision to include DADT and where do I appeal that decision? I'm not at all seeing the collaboration in this article.

193.219.255.33 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think DADT is relevant, given that Matt Sanchez has had gay sex on film and is in the military. The fact that Sanchez is still in the military would seem to me to be a direct contravention of the DADT policy. Aatombomb 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatombomb, a gay activist who is not in the military, is hardly an unbiased source. The Marine Corps has not brought up charges under DADT. The only people DADT concerns are the gay activist like Aatombomb who would like to see me discharged because of DADT. This too is part of the "culture war" of a very active homosexual agenda that tends to be overwhelmingly leftist and vehemently anti-conservative. There is a comical delusion that male homosexual activist somehow feel gay pornography accurately reflects their self-identity and lifestyle. I repeat the petition to remove DADT since it neither is pertinent to my case nor contextualizes my military service.

Wow, that's a whole lot of adjectives you got there. Nevertheless, DADT most certainly concerns individuals like Sanchez who have appeared engaging in homosexual acts on film and advertised escorting services in print and on the web. Aatombomb 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement

In the ensuing controversy, it became public knowledge that Sanchez had been a performer in gay adult films in the early 1990s[1][2]. Sanchez confirmed this, adding that it was his disillusionment with this community that encouraged him to become a self-professed conservative.

It wasn't the "gay adult industry or community" that lead me to become a conservative. It was liberals. I also said, "I progressed from being a liberal to a conservative."in the Alan Colmes interview.

Matt Sanchez 14:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clear idea about what you mean by "liberals." In various parts of this discussion, you refer to "leftists," "gay jihadist," etc. - so is this a monolith? Since it appears we've discounted other things despite attribution to your own quotes, is there evidence you actually were a "liberal?" This just seems rather unclear to me. Perhaps the interview explains what the "progressed" process involved? Harvey 8710 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You can put liberals and allow for self-identification. Just because you don't know who a liberal is, doesn't mean a liberal doesn't know who a liberal is. Gay Jihadist is not synonymous with liberal. 82.214.225.233 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be appropriate to source those who the subject says were "liberals" who "led me to become a conservative." The description is far too vague and potentially full of contradiction. The issue here is the subjects referencing of "liberal" and "conservative" without definition and with the indication there was some sort of "progression." Self-identification is fine, but without a clearer sense of the meaning it contains little more than vague, conjectured information. I'm assuming here that Wikipedia recognizes the existence of something more than two distinct ideological definitions dictated by one specific ideology. I understand that the subject says his previous career wasn't the cause for this "progression" but a specific group of people with some kind of monolithic viewpoint was - and that needs some clarification.Harvey 8710 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "liberal" itself is barely claimed by those who would formerly use it for self-description. The fact that I called myself a "progressive who evolved out of liberalism" in my Salon piece, also is pertinent. "Liberal" is a vague term for liberals who are tending to call themselves "progressives" more and more. But the term "liberal" in American politics is very well documented, gives context to the current political atmosphere in American politics and is widely sourced. Your pretending that "liberal" is vague is a strawman argument.

I disagree, and I see no evidence in the subject biography which indicates any expertise in ideological definitions beyond self-description. Since this is indeed about such self-description, readers should be provided enough information to clearly determine the impression and impact of this "progression" - a point which you clearly missed from the original quote of: "I progressed from being a liberal to a conservative." Since that "progression" had nothing to do with a former career, something more substantial than "liberals" is necessary here. The term "liberal" - just like "conservative" has defined different things at different times and is viewed differently by individuals - including during the "current political atmosphere." This is an encyclopedia entry - we cannot assume that readers automatically assign and understand political definitions solely on the basis of the subject's own bias without appropriate clarity. Harvey 8710 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Should have "Culture Wars" as a way of giving context to "notoriety" of my article, and the current political environment in the United States. My past has garnered attention only because of my conservatism, and the fact that much of the press is run by non-conservatives. The Culture War correctly explains this contemporary phenomena

Matt Sanchez 05:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've explained clearly in these discussions that you are neither a professional journalist or have anything in the bio which indicates any expertise in journalism history, this statement seems more based on ideological conjecture rather than fact. The use of vague ideological terms which cannot easily be defined should be limited in a factual entry. Moreover, just because your ideological bent claims that "much of the press is run by non-conservatives" doesn't mean anything. Perhaps you should explain the use of "culture wars," how it originated, and how it relates specifically to your "notoriety." Harvey 8710 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I thought you were notable for being in gay pornography, for being an escort, and for being in the Marines.Aatombomb 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Aatombomb, there are plenty of gay porn people, some of whom have been in the Marine Corps and other services. I'm not "famous for "being an escort" but I am famous for being smeared as an escort by "non-judgemental" people who are desperate to discredit what I write. The reason why I am remotely known is for the fact that I am a conservative and a rather effective one at that. Matt Sanchez 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that so many gay pornographers are in the military that it is scarcely worth noting? Aatombomb 17:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture War

Ideology is what fuels the culture wars, Harvey 8710. It has nothing to do with "journalism" per say. I do earn my living from my writing and given that my work has appeared in many national publications of some renown, I do claim the title. It's not for me to "explain the culture wars" it is merely a matter of proving my case is a part of them.

Matt Sanchez 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC) For an explanation of the Culture Wars just read the Wiki article.

Matt Sanchez 13:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Harvey, the fact that my detractors are the likes of Max Blumenthal, Joemygod, Huffington Post, Alan Colmes, Olbermann, Kos all liberal/progressive/leftist/radicals versus right-wing/conservative Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Human Events and Kevin McCullough who have all supported me, is already indicative of the Culture War battle. I fail to see how you would refuse to "contextualize" my article within the current environment.Matt Sanchez 14:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad Diarist episode and my reporting

Recent Events

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/reporting_from_fob_falcon.asp

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/31/blogging-from-baghdad-matt-sanchez-checks-in-at-fob-falcon/ Matt Sanchez 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=7387

[edit]

Matt Sanchez 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)